https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83030
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |WAITING
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82960
--- Comment #4 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Ulrich Weigand from comment #3)
> I'll have a look.
Thanks :)
> I still need to get my SPU build environment back up and
> running, the build currently fails due to unrelated issues.
>
> I rem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
--- Comment #4 from Nathan Sidwell ---
I recall discussion years back that concluded the
int *p = &a.s[-1];
case was well formed (there being no access specifier between the two fields).
Of course the validity of the argument may have changed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83058
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82878
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Nov 20 14:39:00 2017
New Revision: 254958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254958&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/82878] pass-by-invisiref in lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78495
--- Comment #5 from Nathan Sidwell ---
Author: nathan
Date: Mon Nov 20 14:39:00 2017
New Revision: 254958
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254958&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
[PR c++/82878] pass-by-invisiref in lambda
https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-p
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
--- Comment #4 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Which causes the code to be accepted. I'd rather do:
template class allocator; // undefined
so there's an error.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82615
--- Comment #4 from Martin Liška ---
Yes, it fixed on Haswell, we're even slightly faster than before the
problematic revision. Tomorrow I'll measure Zen as well.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80899
Jan Hubicka changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|SUSPENDED |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from Jan Hubicka
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83030
--- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
> Thanks for the report. Unfortunately one needs native compiler for that. Do we
> have a working machine in GCC Compile Farm?
Not yet: I do have
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83046
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Schwinge ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #5)
> Thanks for instructions, but apparently does not work for me:
>
> make check-target-libgomp
> === libgomp Summary ===
>
> # of untested testcase
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82682
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Yes. r253955 to r253958 diff is:
--- pr50038.s.2539552017-11-20 09:52:43.0 -0500
+++ pr50038.s.2539582017-11-20 09:52:48.0 -0500
@@ -1,53 +1,55 @@
.file "pr50038.c"
.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83072
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
Status|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83069
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83068
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||hjl.tools at gmail dot com
--- Comment
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82981
Christophe Lyon changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||clyon at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82718
--- Comment #6 from Mark Wielaard ---
Building elfutils with -g -O2 -gdwarf-5 still fails without this patch with
current gcc trunk (just in a different file libdwfl/realloc.c instead of
elf_begin.c as reported originally). Using the proposed pat
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83073
Bug ID: 83073
Summary: Range for VR_VARYING | [1, 1]
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-optimization
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83056
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82882
Andrey Guskov changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||andrey.y.guskov at intel dot
com
--- Co
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83073
Richard Biener changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83052
--- Comment #1 from Andi Kleen ---
I'm not sure why you call it a regression? You must be running the test suite
manually with the new option.
I haven't tested, but likely it will fail if you run that test with
-mcmodel=large too. The -mforce-i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82981
--- Comment #14 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42662
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42662&action=edit
gcc8-pr82981-arm.patch
Untested fix for the arm issue.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
--- Comment #5 from gccbugs at jbapple dot com ---
What is the virtue of making std::allocator an error? Is this
required by the standard? Is it because calls to construct are writing to const
memory?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81315
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78821
--- Comment #30 from Uroš Bizjak ---
Another unhandled case:
--cut here--
typedef __SIZE_TYPE__ size_t;
void baz (char *buf, size_t base, unsigned int data)
{
buf[base] = data;
buf[base+1] = data >> 8;
}
--cut here--
compiles to:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83056
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|unassigned a
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83048
--- Comment #3 from Tom de Vries ---
(In reply to Tom de Vries from comment #2)
> I wonder if we could use a macro like this:
> ...
> #define SAFE_MACRO_STMT(stmt) \
Submitted RFC at https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2017-11/msg
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
--- Comment #6 from Jonathan Wakely ---
You can't allocate const memory, but in essence yes, that's the reason. The
standard says that an allocator's value type must be a non-const, non-volatile
object type, so std::allocator is undefined behavio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83026
Qing Zhao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qing.zhao at oracle dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79538
Qing Zhao changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||qing.zhao at oracle dot com
--- Comment #2 f
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83030
--- Comment #3 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE ---
> --- Comment #2 from ro at CeBiTec dot Uni-Bielefeld.DE Uni-Bielefeld.DE> ---
>> --- Comment #1 from Martin Liška ---
[...]
>> Can you please bisect to a single revision?
>
> Sure, wil
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82933
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||dmalcolm at gcc dot gnu.org,
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=48101
--- Comment #7 from Jonathan Wakely ---
Even if we allowed allocator you still can't use std::set
because the container code assumes a non-const value type in several places.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83041
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Pinski ---
(In reply to Richard Biener from comment #1)
> I think we have a duplicate bug for this looking like
Yes bug 23094.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82933
--- Comment #3 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Created attachment 42663
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42663&action=edit
gcc8-pr82933.patch
Or we can just hack around this and hope dwarf2out or others don't rely on some
other hooks
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83041
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||missed-optimization
See Also|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83030
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |ASSIGNED
CC|ebotcazou at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83074
Bug ID: 83074
Summary: Shared object built with `-pie --coverage' hangs
forever
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prior
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P3 |P1
CC|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075
Bug ID: 83075
Summary: [8 Regression] Invalid strncpy optimization
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: tree-op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83076
Bug ID: 83076
Summary: [8 Regression] ICE in
gfc_deallocate_scalar_with_status, at
fortran/trans.c:1598
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
Bug ID: 83077
Summary: sso-string @ gnu-versioned-namespace.
Product: gcc
Version: 7.2.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: libstdc++
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83078
Bug ID: 83078
Summary: ICE in gfc_typenode_for_spec, at
fortran/trans-types.c:1110
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Prio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83078
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
Detected without "implicit none" :
$ cat z2.f90
program p
type t
integer :: a(n)
end type t
type(t) :: x = t([1, 2])
end
$ gfortran-8-20171119 -c z2.f90
z2.f90:3:19:
integer :: a(n)
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
Bug ID: 83079
Summary: ICE in gfc_widechar_to_char, at fortran/scanner.c:198
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83079
--- Comment #1 from G. Steinmetz ---
While these variants compile :
$ cat z3.f90
program p
print *, transfer('xy', ['a'])
end
$ cat z4.f90
program p
print *, transfer(4_'xy', [4_'ab'])
end
$ cat z5.f90
program p
print *, transfer(4_'
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status|UNCONFIRMED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81291
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Fixed on trunk. This may be the same as PR82621, which I'll backport this
week.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83077
Jonathan Wakely changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79538
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC|qing.zhao at
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83026
Paolo Carlini changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |ASSIGNED
Last reconfirmed|
/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk/libexec/gcc/x86_64-pc-linux-gnu/8.0.0/lto-wrapper
Target: x86_64-pc-linux-gnu
Configured with: ../gcc-source-trunk/configure --enable-languages=c,c++,lto
--prefix=/home/su/software/tmp/gcc/gcc-trunk --disable-bootstrap
Thread model: posix
gcc version 8.0.0 20171120
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79072
--- Comment #15 from Paul Thomas ---
Author: pault
Date: Mon Nov 20 19:09:34 2017
New Revision: 254966
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254966&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-20 Paul Thomas
PR fortran/79072
* trans-expr.c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83075
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||patch
--- Comment #2 from Martin Sebor -
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83071
--- Comment #1 from Ian Lance Taylor ---
This is of course a compiler bug, but it's a crash on invalid code. You can't
write `input++` when `input` is a string type. In Go the `++` operator only
applies to integer types. When I fix the compile
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83052
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Last reconfirmed||2017-11-20
Summary|[8 Regressi
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83071
--- Comment #2 from pmatos at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Ian Lance Taylor from comment #1)
> This is of course a compiler bug, but it's a crash on invalid code. You
> can't write `input++` when `input` is a string type. In Go the `++`
> op
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=79072
--- Comment #16 from neil.n.carlson at gmail dot com ---
I've confirmed Dominique's findings: Code in comments 0, 5, 11 are working now
with Paul's commit (Thanks!), but comment 12 code still gives an ICE.
Should I create a new PR for that exampl
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78821
--- Comment #31 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to Jakub Jelinek from comment #28)
> Ok, let's go with your patch then.
Committed as r254967:
Author: uros
Date: Mon Nov 20 19:52:14 2017
New Revision: 254967
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=53796
Janne Blomqvist changed:
What|Removed |Added
URL||https://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
--- Comment #8 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Author: segher
Date: Mon Nov 20 20:10:28 2017
New Revision: 254968
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254968&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
rs6000: Don't touch below the stack pointer (PR77687)
With the 32-b
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=77687
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83081
Bug ID: 83081
Summary: [8 regression][arm] gcc.dg/pr80218.c fails since
r254888
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priorit
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81315
--- Comment #4 from Mark Millard ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #3)
> Builds fine on powerpc64-linux, both trunk and 7.
Could you give information on how to set up
and run this test, including pointing to
what distribution to i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83011
--- Comment #4 from Julien ÉLIE ---
Martin, the following thing still puzzles me.
len = 52 * timer_count + 27 + (prefix == NULL ? 0 : strlen(prefix)) + 1;
=> gives a warning, as explained below
len = 1 + 52 * timer_count + 27 + (prefix == NULL
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83074
Martin Liška changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed|
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68690
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78821
--- Comment #32 from Uroš Bizjak ---
(In reply to rguent...@suse.de from comment #20)
> Index: gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c
> ===
> --- gcc/tree-ssa-sccvn.c(revision 254945)
> +++ g
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83045
Jakub Jelinek changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #2
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83074
--- Comment #2 from H.J. Lu ---
(In reply to Martin Liška from comment #1)
> Hi.
>
> Thanks for the report. I isolated the issue and it's related to how
> constructors are called and hang in GCOV is just demonstration of the
> problem.
>
> Plea
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=70134
--- Comment #3 from Segher Boessenkool ---
PowerPC has no simple way to set a CR field to "equal". We could add
a pattern to do that (which will cost 2 insns, so works for 3->2
combinations, like we in fact get here; something like li X,0 ; cmp
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83074
--- Comment #3 from Stefan Vargyas ---
>
> Why do you expect you can use a PIE as a shared library?
>
Well, with `-pie' one can issue 'foo.so' by itself:
$ ./foo.so
foo.so: version 0.1
This feature is quite useful in practice -- for exam
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83074
--- Comment #4 from Jakub Jelinek ---
(In reply to Stefan Vargyas from comment #3)
> This feature is quite useful in practice -- for example, the
> GNU C library is runnable this way too:
>
> $ /lib64/libc.so.6
> GNU C Library stable release
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83074
Andreas Schwab changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83082
Bug ID: 83082
Summary: [8 regression] libgomp.graphite/force-parallel-1.c
fails starting with r254888
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: no
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83083
Bug ID: 83083
Summary: c++2a concepts without -fconcepts
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component: c++
Ass
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81356
--- Comment #8 from Steve Ellcey ---
Author: sje
Date: Tue Nov 21 00:18:14 2017
New Revision: 254977
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254977&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-20 Steve Ellcey
PR target/81356
* gfortran.dg/pr4
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83027
--- Comment #17 from Victor Porton ---
Created attachment 42666
--> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=42666&action=edit
Minimal example reprising the bug
I've created the minimal example reprising the bug.
The bug is actually awf
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=72786
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 21 00:40:53 2017
New Revision: 254978
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254978&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C++: provide macro used-before-defined hint (PR c++/72786)
This patch
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83011
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |NEW
Summary|-Wformat-truncatio
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81404
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=80567
--- Comment #3 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 21 00:50:39 2017
New Revision: 254980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C/C++: more stdlib header hints (PR c/81404)
This patch extends the C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81404
--- Comment #6 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 21 00:50:39 2017
New Revision: 254980
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254980&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
C/C++: more stdlib header hints (PR c/81404)
This patch extends the C
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81794
--- Comment #5 from David Malcolm ---
Author: dmalcolm
Date: Tue Nov 21 00:57:29 2017
New Revision: 254981
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254981&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
Use -Wtraditional for "would be stringified in traditional C" (PR
prepr
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81794
David Malcolm changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81315
--- Comment #5 from Segher Boessenkool ---
This was BE, on a compiler that defaults to power4 ("970 without altivec").
I.e. the default for powerpc64-linux.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81315
--- Comment #6 from Mark Millard ---
(In reply to Segher Boessenkool from comment #5)
> This was BE, on a compiler that defaults to power4 ("970 without altivec").
> I.e. the default for powerpc64-linux.
Good to know. Thanks.
I've no clue what
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83057
--- Comment #2 from urbanjost at comcast dot net ---
A long-standing convention when referencing procedures anprd commands,
especially on Unix platforms is to suffix them with (category[group]) to
distinguish them from English words and to identif
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66552
--- Comment #4 from Segher Boessenkool ---
Trunk does (both -m32 and -m64)
srawi 9,4,5
addze 9,9
slwi 9,9,5
subf 4,9,4
srw 3,3,4
and
rlwinm 4,4,0,27,31
srw 3,3,4
so the original problem
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78549
--- Comment #25 from Jerry DeLisle ---
Author: jvdelisle
Date: Tue Nov 21 02:17:11 2017
New Revision: 254982
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254982&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
2017-11-20 Jerry DeLisle
PR libgfortran/78549
* i
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67530
Segher Boessenkool changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||segher at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comme
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83080
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Status|UNCO
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83060
Martin Sebor changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||msebor at gcc dot gnu.org
--- Comment #5
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=81325
Markus Trippelsdorf changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83084
Bug ID: 83084
Summary: [7/8 Regression] -fcompare-debug failure on ppc64le
Product: gcc
Version: 8.0
Status: UNCONFIRMED
Severity: normal
Priority: P3
Component:
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83071
--- Comment #3 from ian at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: ian
Date: Tue Nov 21 06:14:32 2017
New Revision: 254983
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254983&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
compiler: report error for ++/-- applied to a non-numeric type
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83071
Ian Lance Taylor changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |RESOLVED
Resolution|---
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=83027
Eric Botcazou changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords|wrong-code |
Status|WAITING
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=82981
--- Comment #15 from Jakub Jelinek ---
Author: jakub
Date: Tue Nov 21 07:49:14 2017
New Revision: 254986
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=254986&root=gcc&view=rev
Log:
PR target/82981
* internal-fn.c (expand_mul_overflow): Us
101 - 200 of 201 matches
Mail list logo
